[continued from yesterday’s post]
R: Okay, I’ve been wanting to ask some more about duality. Our physical world seems to be wrapped in duality, and I have sometimes felt from your answers that duality seems to exist on the other side as well, but I’m not clear about that.
F: Oh, I think you’re very clear about that. It’s always a mistake to assume that the other side, as it looks to you, is perfect, or completed. When creation split things into duality, in order to create something, it didn’t only happen on the material realm. If you’ll look at your bible, you have the good and the bad angels, or at any rate the angels that fought. Well, that’s a duality well beyond the physical. And don’t get your hopes up, once you go over to the other side it’s not all over. [chuckles]
R: I though it was all going to be love, because love has no opposite!
F: Uh huh.
R: [pause] You don’t want to respond to that?
F: Oh, well, we will if you want! It didn’t sound like a question!
F: Well, why isn’t that true for where you are?
R: Well that is true—
F: All right.
R: — but there are a couple of concepts that seem like they don’t have a dual aspect. Love is one of them.
F: Well, Frank and Charles [a neighbor and close friend] were talking on Sunday about perfect moments, and what we managed to get clear to both of them was, all moments are perfect, but they’re not all fun, they’re not all desirable, they’re not all pleasant. The universe is created in love and is enfolded in love, and cannot exist without love, but it’s not all pleasant or fun either, because – if you’ll remember what we said “a long time ago” —
F: Sorry. [chuckles]
R: That’s okay. You keep pulling my leg on that one.
F: Yes we do. It’s only affection, don’t worry about it. [they chuckle]
The pluses and the minuses balance out. Therefore you’re going to have either mild polarity widely spread or sometimes really sharp polarities, where the pluses gather in one place and the minuses gather in another, you know? And you may experience that as strife, or as complementarity, or as pleasing diversity. You could experience it in different ways. But it’s a great mistake to think that “all will be nice and love and light” and – You’d be bored! We would too.
R: So a state in which duality does not exist wouldn’t be a state to be desired at all?
F: Well as far as we know, the only state that doesn’t involve dualities is beyond creation, and we don’t know what’s beyond creation. In other words, all creation could be looked at as comprising pluses and minuses in equal amounts. And you couldn’t have one extra plus or one extra minus. Now, we may have said that in such a way that you took that to mean physical reality, but we didn’t mean that. We meant all creation. We don’t think it’s possible to have anything else. Subject to correction, but —
F: So. This actually should explain to you why there’s so much flux and change and play in the entire universe, not just in physical matter reality. We have our pluses and minuses going on too. [pause] The difference may be that we’re not seeing them in time-slices as you are, and so to us it looks much more like a kaleidoscope with patterns to be enjoyed than it does like warfare, with victory to be won. Once you fully know that, except locally, you cannot have more pluses than minuses or more minuses than pluses, it takes the desperation out of things and it adds a certain amount of aesthetic satisfaction. Then, you don’t mind playing the villain in the movie, either. Because you haven’t created the villainy, you see. All you’ve done is localize some minuses. And that enables someone else, somewhere else, to localize some pluses. We know this is going to seem cynical to your readers [chuckles] — but it’ll be good for them.
R: No, that’s all very interesting to me. I think I’ve been making the assumption that dualities are of this physical realm.
F: Yes, many people are making the same assumption. Now, you have dualities in the physical realm that don’t exist in the non-physical, strictly because they’re local to material. But there are other dualities, as we just said, that extend beyond the physical. And, may we say, if you’ll hark back a hundred years or so to the religious dogma of the Christians in your country, the unthinking ones thought of endless singing and playing harps in heaven? And Mark Twain made fun of the whole concept and pointed out how hideous it would be. They were trying to envision all pluses and no minuses. And he was pointing out that would not even be aesthetically pleasing.
And in fact the concept of heaven and hell assumes a geographical split, although the spatial analogy is somewhat hidden, between all the pluses in one place and all the minuses in the other place. And that assumes that there wouldn’t be any interplay between them, they wouldn’t be swapping places, they wouldn’t be —
F: So it’s kind of a boring idea. [laughs]
F: Now – sorry to complicate it – we want you to remember that “souls of a feather flock together,” and people at a certain vibratory level — which implies a certain mixture of pluses and minuses within them — do segregate out. So we’re going to leave that for you to think about. On the one hand, we’re saying there are pluses and minuses and movement all the time; it’s like a kaleidoscope. On the other hand, we’re saying, souls, people, monads, of a certain composition not only want to flock together, but really have not a realistic choice, because they’re held there as though their specific gravity is holding them. We’re deliberately building in a contradiction for you to think about.
R: Thank you. [they laugh] Very much.
F: Well, we can talk about angels and harps! [they chuckle] If you prefer.
R: Well I don’t know whether to go on with that or not.
F: Well, we’ll tell you this. It’s far preferable for people to be thinking about stuff even in getting so-called “wrong” answers, than to think they know when in fact they haven’t really thought about it. It’s better to be in perplexity than to be in a false satisfaction. Because the perplexity won’t last. At some point you’ll make sense of it. [pause] Maybe.
R: I guess I was thinking that a resolution to the dualities is often to take the positives and negatives off the duality. So that for example if one is thinking about black and white as a duality, one doesn’t put pluses on both sides of that duality.
F: Well, now remember – thank you for mentioning this – we are using plus and minus in the electrical sense, only. We’re not meaning good or bad. Perhaps your language isn’t neutral enough about plus and minus. We’re trying to come up with a neutral description of polarity, that’s all. Nothing more. [pause] Perhaps we could use blue and orange as colors on opposite ends of the scale. We would use red and green, except that wouldn’t work in your society. But we could say blue and orange instead of plus and minus if you wish.
R: All right, now there are a number of questions that keep coming up from Frank’s fan club about the earth and earth inhabitants and so on. Certainly our early sessions spoke to this issue, but specifics are being asked out there, and I think Frank feels okay either way about including these.
F: We would say, follow your own impulse as to whether to ask or not, judging that it won’t just be only your own impulse. Be irresponsible about it. [chuckles]
R: Well, maybe we could handle it [inaudible] [they laugh]
Okay, we had talked in other sessions about all the inhabitants of the earth not being visible to us. People are asking about fairies and elves, the little people, about non-humans in bodies like Bigfoot, the possibility that there is a group of energies living within a hollow earth, werewolves —
F: Well, we think we can handle that whole subject in one over-arching paragraph, if you want us to.
R: Yes, please.
F: We would say, whenever a phenomenon has been described over a period of time, it would be unwise to disregard that testimony. Elves, fairies, gnomes, exist and are perceived by cultures as well as individuals whose mental structures do not prohibit them from seeing them. What they describe, they’re not inventing. Now, in your own time you have a variant of that, and that is, in a literate society there is something of a chance that someone’s imagination can create something in such a persuasive way that others will then perpetuate that creation deliberately. The Lovecraft stories are an example. Lovecraft in his imagination developed a whole mythology of beings within the earth, and of a sort of proto-history of the earth, which has had a profound impact on many people over three generations. There are people taking those mythologies seriously. And we say to you that the reason why some people will come up with something like that that will have such an effect has to do with a question of definition. Whose imagination? Where did it come from?
Do you see what we’re saying? You think when you sit down to write that it is you making something up out of whole cloth. But in fact, sometimes –if not most times – you are receiving a transmission.
When you speak of beings in a hollow earth, we see a fallacy of misplaced concreteness. There are people who think that the earth is a hollow sphere with actual hollowness inside! And that isn’t what it is! But what they’re perceiving or what some have perceived is that the interior of the earth is inhabited by beings that are intelligent — but that doesn’t mean they have bodies like yours or they’re wandering around under a blue sky like you. And that is a translation error, you see?
Now as to Bigfoot and Sasquatch and – you know, the Loch Ness monster; all the kinds of teasers to science. They are much like UFOs; they are phenomena that have been deliberately constructed to be just beyond reality, to stretch you. We’ll say nothing about who’s constructing them. We do not mean individuals hoaxing. So, you have crop circles, you have UFOs, you have Bigfoot, you have Loch Ness, you have gnomes, fairies – well, no, actually they’re in a different [pause]
R: [How about werewolves?]
F: They’re ordinarily in a different category. They’re in the same category now because they’re having the same effect. Werewolves are actually a special case of shape-shifting, and that’s a special case of people moving from their one body to their second body, and creating a simulacrum, but it looks like a real body, and functions like one. Those are just facts, but they’re facts that your science refuses to admit, because it doesn’t even deal with the energy body. It’ll be obvious enough, once the actual plodding everyday scientists begin to deal with the world as primarily a thought, rather than primarily some object. Then their view of what is possible and what isn’t possible will be unrecognizably transformed. And they could save themselves a tremendous amount of false starts if they would go first – first, not last – to the folklore of all the societies of earth — because that’s where your historical records are. These are the historical records of “what is.” Okay?
Not quite one paragraph, but it’s shorter than we usually are. [they chuckle]
R: In the same group of things, people are including something somewhat different, asking about the dolphins and whales, since they’ve been described as having great intelligence, and perhaps more intelligence than human beings.
F: We will suppress several sarcastic comments that come to mind! [they laugh] Such as: How hard would that be?
R: Yes, okay.
F: Yes, you’re right, they are a different category of things, because just as we once told you that all maple trees could be considered extensions of one maple tree, of the prime maple tree, and that animals are sort of like that, and yet a little more autonomous, because they have more responsibilities? That is to say, they have movement, and more possibilities? Your beautiful sea-borne mammals are humans without the necessity of work. They are one thing with very active consciousness of every single one of them as a node of consciousness.
Your cetaceans spread a net around the entire planet, not just physically, in that they can whistle for thousands of miles, but shall we say, metaphysically, because they’re all one thing. The fact that they’re being systematically and ruthlessly destroyed, and that some of them are voluntarily leaving, is changing the plus and minus equation on the planet, but it need not be looked on as a tragedy. It’s a change. There is reasons for this. It’s a sacrifice, perhaps you should say. But yes, the whales, the dolphins—but, see –
Sharks are as intelligent as dolphins; you just tend not to like them! [they laugh] They have a purpose, but you tend not to like the purpose. They are one of the oldest species on earth and they are fabulously efficient killing-machines. Well, you don’t like to hear it, but the earth needs killing-machines, the same as the earth needs scavengers. Without scavengers you’d be awash in corpses. Without killing machines, you’d be awash in live bodies. It’s all a matter of balance. Again, the pluses and the minuses. You’re attributing to the shark your own malevolent impulses, and by projecting your own feelings, that you fear to get out of control, onto it, you decide that it’s evil. By looking at the whale and by projecting onto it your own impulses toward play and toward community —
F: Benevolence, exactly. Then you say, “oh, they’re good.” Well, we say to you that there’s nothing in creation that’s good or bad, but that thinking makes it so. You may have heard that before.
R: Well, what’s the relationship between all of the things we’ve been talking about here, and the amoeba?
F: Well, let’s back off here. You say “the amoeba,” but you don’t mean there’s one amoeba for all creation.”
R: No, the concept of the amoeba.
F: Okay. [pause] Parenthetically, remember that sometimes we’ll make a correction on the record because you’re not the only people going to read this. Okay? So that we may correct things that we know full well that you aren’t meaning, but that others might wonder, that’s all.
[sigh] It’s hard for you to remember, but it will help you to remember, that everything is part of one thing, and killer whales, and dolphins, and sharks, and you — possibly in descending order [humorous cough] — are all part of the same thing that’s on the other side of the time-space slices. You’re not separate. And also, people on Alpha Centuri. You know what we’re saying. Therefore you mustn’t necessarily assume a difference in kind between the whale intelligence or the whale spirit, shall we say, that goes back to the other side, and yours. They may well be part of the same larger being, or they may be part of different larger beings. That’s not predictable, it could be either.
R: I see. It could be either.
F: Sure. Sure, you see, your larger being could express partly as a whale, partly as a tree, partly as a person. And, again, we’ll say to you, go back to your native traditions and see! There have often been traditions that talked about souls migrating from one to the other. Well, we don’t see it as migrating, but we see it as a valuable clue. Or, look at it a different way, we’ll give you the clue, and much that’s been said that hasn’t seemed to make sense will make sense in a different sense. Too many uses of the same word, but you understand.
R: So that the amoeba is – the concept here is growing a bit – so that other forms of being on this earth as well as other forms of being not on this earth, in other dimensions, all of what — You’ve already said all this, I’m just repeating it to myself.
F: No, you’re clarifying it for others as well.. And we’ll say to you, if you’ll make a habit of trying to see your world as a great thought rather than as a great thing, or a great machine, or a great being, it will clarify to you some of the fluidity that’s there underneath the seeming rigidity of structures. So that if you will start from the amoeba and say the amoeba thinks into being a Rita, and a whale, and a blade of grass, and a tree – it’s a sort of halfway house between what conventional religious might say, God created all those, or a pantheist might say, God is all those.
You see where I’m going with this: It’s a new way of thinking, because it’s a very old way of thinking. But neither is western civilization a detour. Instead, by your coming through this entirely unprecedented path to a re-understanding of what the natives understood all along, you actually add sophistication to the concepts, strictly because you came at it from another point of view. That’s the value.
Now, your sin has been to hold in contempt what you didn’t understand, which is most things. Your redemption will be to not only learn to hold them in reverence, but to offer to them a new understanding that they don’t have. Because you forget, the native traditions around the world, the native religious traditions, you might almost say, are disconnected. They can’t speak one to the other. Only you can do that. The West was created to create a global civilization that could then translate to everyone, so that your tower of Babel can be reassembled. Not that you need to speak the same language like English, French, Persian, but that you need to speak the same language in terms of how you see the world, in that sense. Okay?
F: Well, you want to be bored?
F: It’s a great task! It’s a great joy!
R: A great task.
F: You see, the Tahitians understand something of the world that you do not. And so do the Peruvians. But only through the west can the Tahitians and the Peruvians communicate and be part of a large global culture. That’s the west’s chore and task and joy – if it loses that initial, provincial, somewhat juvenile assumption that it is right, and everybody else is ignorant.
R: Mm-hmm. [inaudible] seems such a one-way —
F: Well, it depends on your society. Half of your society is very arrogant, and the other half has almost an inverse arrogance, which says anything the west does is wrong. And both aspects are well beyond incomplete; they’re sort of silly. A sophisticated view will say, “the west was created for its own view; let’s find out what that was. And each of these other civilizations was created to create its own view, let’s find out what that was. Now, how can we put it together, how can we and they put it together, so that we can recognize different ways of viewing the same reality?” You see, it’s the same process that we’re talking about here. Only it’s a much larger process because it’s global, and it will take you more than a little longer than this. Probably three days instead of two.
R: And we’re going to be around long enough to make a dent in that?
F: Well who’s we?
R: We all.
F: Who’s we all? You in your body?
R: The human on the earth?
F: Well what difference would it make? We’ll say yes you will, no you won’t.
R: All right. I think that’s enough for tonight.
F: Always a pleasure.